Petitioner challenged non-payment of dues for executed rural development works as Panchayat Sevak. Court held that since enquiry found no misappropriation and attributed delay to transfer, the matter could not be ignored.
Directed Principal Secretary to take decision considering the enquiry report and pass a speaking order within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6110 of 2017
--------
Toshleshwar Pandey S/o Late Bhuneshwar Pandey, Resident of VillageKurcha, P.O. Ichak, P.C. Ichak, Distrit-Koderma.
…… Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.-III : Mr. D.C. Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III ----------------------------
07 / Dated 18th June, 2019
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has prayed to issue appropriate direction upon the concerned authority for making payment of dues amount on the basis of the work performed which has been corroborated by its measurement.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Panchayat Sevak in Chandwara Block, he has assigned to execute two works under the scheme No.01/2007-08 and 02/2007-08. The scheme No.1, after execution of work, measurement of the execution to the extent of Rs.15,18,583.00/- has been made and while executing the work under Scheme No.02/07-08 the measurement of the work for measurement to the extent of
2
Rs.15,93,466.00/- has been made but the entire amount has not been paid i.e. for Scheme No.01 which is about 18,583/-, while for scheme No.2, is about 43,466/-, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondent placing the same by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III, has submitted that the work in question has been executed beyond the fixed time, therefore, the amount is not admitted and the position of law is very clear that in case of disputed money claim, the remedy lies to be aggrieved before the competent court for its adjudication.
His further submission is that for irregularity a departmental proceeding has been initiated in which the charge leveled against him has been found to be proved, upon which, the order of punishment of censure has been passed.
Upon which, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that what has been contended and stated in the counter affidavit is contrary to the enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Koderma as has been annexed as Annexure-4. His submission is that it would be evident from Page-48 thereof that the enquiry officer has not found any misappropriation of public money and whatever delay has been caused i.e. due to transfer from Chandwara to Koderma Block, therefore, amount which is lying before the authority cannot be withheld, therefore, appropriate direction may be passed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is not in dispute that the petitioner while working as Panchat Sevak in the Chandwara Block, has been assigned two works to execute i.e. for construction of building of Panchayat in Mahugaw village and another is the construction of Panchayat building for Tham Gram panchayat, both the schemes have been marked as Scheme Nos.01/07-07 and 02/07-08 which were to be executed under the said scheme. The petitioner has executed the work and thereafter, measurement has also been made but the amount in entirety has not been disbursed in his favour.
3
A departmental proceeding has been initiated for which the enquiry officer has been appointed, who has concluded the enquiry and submitted report before the Deputy Commissioner which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition wherefrom it is evident that the scheme No.01/07-08 the petitioner after execution of the work and on its measurement it has been found that the work to the tune of Rs.15,18,583.00/has been executed. Likewise for scheme No.02/07-08 the work to the extent of Rs.15,93,466.00/- has been measured.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute regarding disbursement of money pertaining to Scheme No.01/2007-08 Rs.15,18,538.00/- have been made out while for scheme No.02/2007-08 against the total work for amount and measured of an extent of Rs.15,93,466.00/- the sum of Rs.15 lakhs have been disbursed in favour of the petitioner, as per the scheme No.01/2007-08 and Rs.15,50,000.00/- for the Scheme No. 02/2007-08, therefore, the work for scheme No.1 and sum of Rs.18,583.00/- and for scheme No.02 sum of Rs.43,466.00/have not been disbursed.
6. The State-respondent has disputed the same by taking the stand in the counter affidavit that the work has been executed after delay i.e. after the expiry of the stipulated time.
7. It is not in dispute that in a case the disputed claim, the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to pass any mandamus by issuing a direction upon the State authority to disburse the amount but certainly if the amount would be found to be admitted the writ court has got jurisdiction to exercise the extraordinary power conferred thereunder.
8. This Court considering the aforesaid legal position of law and on appreciation of the enquiry report as has been annexed as Annexure-4 wherefrom it is evident that the enquiry officer has come with the conclusive finding that there is no misappropriation of public money however there is some delay but the delay stipulated therein i.e. the transfer of petitioner from Chandwara to Koderma block, therefore, the ground which has been agitated by the State-respondent in counter affidavit more particularly at paragraph-14 and 16 wherein it has been stated that the work
4
was not completed in time for which petitioner has been held liable but, the said statement is contrary to the enquiry report as has been annexed as Annexure-7.
Further the Annexure-7 has been annexed in order to support the statement made at Pragraph-9 to the writ petition it has been replied by the State-respondent at Paragraph-10 and as would be evident from the said paragraph that the statement made at paragraph-9 has not been disputed, therefore, this Court is of the view that when the enquiry officer has come to the conclusive finding with respect to no misappropriation of public money and the reason for delay has been reflected therein i.e. the transfer of the petitioner from one place to another hence, the grievances pertaining to disbursement of the money needs consideration.
9. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take decision considering the enquiry report dated 18.11.2013 as has been annexed as Annexure-7 by passing a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
10. Needless to say that if the concerned respondent thinks to hear the other authorities who are related with the scheme, he is at liberty to hear before taking final decision.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Madhav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can direct the State authority to pay disputed dues when an enquiry reports no misappropriation but admits some delay.
Whether allegations of delay and irregularity in execution of public works are distinct grounds for withholding payment if not supported by the enquiry report.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Toshleshwar Pandey
The State of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
